Your views in 200 words or less

March 1, 2011 10:37 am

You only have to look as far as the Midwest (Wisconsin, Indiana) to see why public sector unions and collective bargaining “rights” are a bad idea.

First, collective bargaining is not a right, it’s a privilege given to public sector unions by their friends in government. Think about it. Public sector union bosses sign collective bargaining agreements with like-minded politicians (Democrats), giving union members (and their bosses) contracts with great benefits.

Then, union dues are taken from members (whether they want to be members or not), and a portion of these dues are given back to these same like-minded politicians so they can get re-elected. Unions use our tax dollars to elect the politicians they will be negotiating with to take more of our tax dollars.

This vicious cycle goe s’round and ’round, and who’s stuck paying the bill? The taxpayers, whether they want to or not. This should be illegal.

So Jack, what you are saying is public sector workers are not entitled to the freedom and liberty and equality they gain through collective bargaining for their economic security. That’s a bit un-American as I see it.
I have always been taught that freedom, liberty and equality applied to all aspects of one’s existance, not special parts that you or anyone else can choose.

Funny P, I thought Jack expressed his thoughts quite well on his own.
It reminds me of something Barry said not so long ago… “I won”. Apparently the GOP won this time around in Wisconsin. Too bad the sore losers have such a short (selective) memory.
BTW, how do you rectify your “freedom” rhetoric with the fact that under Obamacare we are no longer ‘free’ to choose whether or not to purchase health insurance…? or the lack of someone’s ‘right’ to not join a union in certain states? (see how easy it is to stretch meanings?)

On a sidenote, I have a family member who is a teacher in Wisconsin and is married to a teacher in Wisconsin… they send their kids to private school. Kooky.

You are free to be heard. That does not mean you boss has to kiss your behind. What makes my LMAO is that it is illegal in WA for teachers to strike, but the Gov and other ‘Crats are so deep into the WEA that they will not do the right thing and enforce that law….Reagan had the right idea when ATCs tried to hold the nation’s air travel hostage: Fire Them All, and hire someone that will appreciate the job.

The simple fact is the NeoCons are offended that unions giving money to the Democrats, but have no problems with the rich and corporations giving unlimited amounts to the Republicans, or for the Republicans giving away no-bid cost-lus contracts, tax breaks, and other types of corporate welfare to their supporters.

If a private sector union demands too much in wage and benefit compensation the private company can close the doors or move to a less expensive labor market. That in itself regulates private sector pay and benefits.

The government does not have that latitude when dealing with public sector unions. What is worse is the public union’s ability to lobby the representatives they finance through manditory union dues to increase employee wages and benefits thus getting around the wage and benefits negotiations and negotiators.

When you speak of “mandatory” union dues, if I am not mistaken those dues may be donated to some charity is the employee does not want them to go to the union. I may be mistaken about that and if I am, I would be perfectly willing for those not choosing to belong to the union not having to pay union dues if they were willing to forgo any benifits negotiated. I have not belonged to a union in quite some time, but I do remember the antiunion employees more than willing to take any increase in wages or benefits. I would have had much more respect from them if they would have turned it down.

I am a member of a Public Employee Union. I happen to agree with Mr. Moore on one point. We are required to belong to a union, whether we like it or not. I am not a fan of Unions donating money to campaigns because they usually do not give it to anyone I support.

As for all of the hype about great benefits and supposed great contracts, I say get a a better negotiator. I pay 1/2 of my retirement and a portion of my medical benefits as do many other public sector employees. I had similar benefits while working for a private company.

Isn’t the real question whether or not the pay and benefits are comparable to the private sector for similar work? I know many think government employees are lazy, but I saw similar numbers of lazy employees in the private sector. In my job I have seen fair amount of people leave for the private sector. If the pay and benefits are so great why do people leave?

I was also a member of a union and we had a guy who stopped paying the union dues for a period of time. The policy was to donate the same amount to a charity. I believe it was negotiated between the city and the respective unions as it was consistent across the city.

The issue for him was not over pay and benefits but the political endorsements of the union. The question was why consistently endorse Democratic candidates. Based on our salary at the time he felt the GOP and their traditional low income tax position was better for him and his family.

Ironically he wasn’t the only one that felt that way. Come election time what was surprising to me was to hear the number of union members that actually say they voted GOP.

Yo Sue, the Democrats have more uneducated minions than the Republicans. The Democrat philosophy is to keep their supporters uneducated so that they will continue to vote Democrat in order to get all the goodies the Democrats promise (that they never deliver, so as to repeat the cycle). Hell they have 98% of a race brainwashed into guaranteed votes. How is that for minions?

Jack seems to feel that if the elected officials, those who negotiate with the public employees, are supported by these employees during their campaigns, that creates a conflict in interest, yet in Wisconsin the legislative majority and the governor are not supported by the public employees and their union. So why, then, is there any reason for his heartburn, when he writes, “You only have to look as far as the Midwest (Wisconsin, Indiana) to see why public sector unions and collective bargaining “rights” are a bad idea?”

Wisconsin doesn’t fit the subsequent scenario found in the remainder of his letter.

Jim, we all have to pay through our taxes for those who do not have health coverage but have medical needs. Many employers are too cheap to provide coverage, anymore. We as a caring society cannot allow Americans to go without needed medical treatment, so…….mandatory coverage is the logical conclusion. Not my first choice but a necessary choice.

The requirement that employers use only employees who are covered under their collective agreement is negotiated and agreed upon between the two concerned parties, in this case the employee’s union and the state. It isn’t a union requirement but an agreed prerequisite. Being the exclusive provider of labor isn’t a new concept.

I support public education and I support private education. Your family members are free to use either, without implying that they endorse one over the other. Their reasons are personal, unless you have more than just your unsubstantiated implications, Jim.

Just look at Click network in Tacoma, A broadband technician is making 84k a year for them, well the same tech makes 40-50k in the private sector. I my self am a headend tech I made 55k a year working in the private sector in 08.
The same job at click pays over 100k a year and that doesn’t include pensions or med cost. NO comparison what so ever!!!

When will they be done milking this cow? What was the context of Obama’s statement “I won”? …no…wait….what else did he say in that phrase?

Here:

“House Republican Whip Eric Cantor gave President Obama a list of modest proposals for the bill. Obama said he would consider the GOP ideas, but told the assembled Republicans that “elections have consequences” and “I won.” Backed by the largest congressional majorities in decades, the president was not terribly interested in giving ground to his vanquished adversaries.”

xring… one of the uninformed. Corporations can not donate to politicians. The rich republicans? Who are they? Let me tell you of a few Democrat liberals that are liberal donors. Bill Gates Sr & Jr. Warren Buffett. Those are two of the richest in the world. Steve Jobs of Apple, the owner of Starbucks, The Google boys, Most of Hollywood. Most all black NBA players & NFL football players. I think you get the idea but of course you have had the liberal facts supplied to you by your union. Pathetic.

It is amazing to me that this question is still being asked after months and months of explainations.
“BTW, how do you rectify your “freedom” rhetoric with the fact that under Obamacare we are no longer ‘free’ to choose whether or not to purchase health insurance…?”
You do not have to purchase health insurance. If you choose not to, you will be fined,but that does not take your choice away. The reason you will be fined is also quite simple. The fine will help to pay for your visit to the emergency room or any other medical care you get that you cannot afford because you chose to not participate. You may think you can get away with a free ride on the backs of all the rest of us. No longer, my friend.

Just look at Click network in Tacoma, A broadband technician is making 84k a year for them, well the same tech makes 40-50k in the private sector. I my self am a headend tech I made 55k a year working in the private sector in 08.
The same job at click pays over 100k a year and that doesn’t include pensions or med cost. NO comparison what so ever!!!

Hey JACK!!! You tried this one last week and someone handed you your lunch by pointing out that you neglected to consider overtime for the CLICK people.

If CLICK didn’t exist, Comcast would own the entire market and they could pay you less. Thank those union guys at CLICK for making your wage liveable.

Nanook,
Unions have the right to ask, the government has the right to say NO!
Corporations spend 50 times what the unions do but I don’t see any anti-union types speak out about it.

R_O, “dems are more uneducated that Republicans” Not even close, but try to prove it anyway.

JackNo; ‘click network pay” has already been proven false. Repeating the myth does not change the falsehood of the myth.

Whatido,
50 to 1: fact proven to be true.
There is already a recall move against Walker and 6 republican senators. Fourteen courageous people are sticking to their beliefs and protecting the people of WI.

Tom. As the old saying goes “Engage Brian to prevent foot in mouth” so go look up the Citizens United case.
I belong to no union and to no political party, and do my own research and evaluation.

concernedtacoma7, you totally misread or misinterpreted what I wrote. Freedom, liberty and equality are inalienable rights for everyone and that includes being able to form a union to secure them when others would take them away.
Why do I have to explain this to you is the real question.

This debate is about money. Period. Liberty and equality? Be real. The unions want more money and pay, that is natural. The union bosses want more power. Problem is unlike a private corp, we are kind of stuck as taxpayers with public services (yes, I acknowledge one could move to another state/country). The flexibility and competition in the private sector allow for and facilitate/tolerate unions.

And “for everyone”? The military included in that? The line has to be drawn somewhere, and this debate is over public unions. Federal employees cannot unionize and there are no riots in the streets or hippies playing drums in US Capitol. In the end this is less about a group of workers (who happen to get paid just fine to work at most 210 days a year!) and more about taking money from the government and the 50% of citizens who actually pay taxes.

The simple fact is the NeoCons are offended that unions giving money to the Democrats, but have no problems with the rich and corporations giving unlimited amounts to the Republicans, or for the Republicans giving away no-bid cost-lus contracts, tax breaks, and other types of corporate welfare to their supporters.
———————————————————————————-
Well said, it is a vicious circle no matter how you look at it. This year or the next, this whole thing will have changed hands again. Then we will be back to the other, a year or two after that. While taxpayers are paying out either way, they are losing until this vicious circle is broken. I don’t really see a difference in Unions or Corporations, both are out to take in as money as they can.

Most of the laws that protect workers now were formed as a direct result of union lobbying.

“In the end this is less about a group of workers (who happen to get paid just fine to work at most 210 days a year!) and more about taking money from the government and the 50% of citizens who actually pay taxes. ”

Which “at most 210 days a year” job a year are you referring to? The only one I can think of is congress, although I suspect you may be talking about teachers. I’ve met quite a few teachers and para-educators who also teach summer school as well. Others use their summer break to keep their education requirements up to date.

Mostly I have issue with “taking money from… the 50% of citizens who actually pay taxes”.

Public employees don’t “take” anything. They each do a job for the state and are paid wages for their service rendered. Do you “take” from your employer when he pays you for your work? No? I didn’t think so.

Also, who are the 50% you know who don’t pay taxes? Do they even exist?
Even unemployed homeless people pay some sales taxes at very least.

As a DSHS paid caregiver, I am one of those “public” employees you keep going on about. I can assure you that my husband and I pay sales taxes, property taxes, car registrations (always donating to the parks as I do), fuel tax, federal income tax, tolls on bridges and probably just about every other tax that you do.

I don’t get it…no one is FORCED to give any money to the unions. If they do not want to pay the union dues then go to work for a non-union shop, move to a non-union state, do whatever…but don’t go to work for that employer.

How silly is all of this???

That’s the beauty of this country. You have choices…people like to think that your choice is being limited but it’s not. You’d just like to have your cake and eat it to. Sorry – that’s not how things work.

Why does the Right Wing want to always invoke some silly internet “law” when people bring up the truth?

Here is the explanation of Godwin’s “Law” (which was intended as humor)

“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”[3][2] In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope— someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.

Now, if the discussion was baseball and evolved to Hitler, I’d understand the “application”. Since Hitler DID outlaw labor unions, the point in in context and a valuable lesson in democracy that is being lived out in our own country today.

If you want collective bargaining, commoncents, move to a state that allows it.

That’s the beauty of this country. You have choices…people like to think that your choice is being limited but it’s not. You’d just like to have your cake and eat it to. Sorry – that’s not how things work.

“I’m sure glad that person’s philosophy didn’t stand in the way of him taking all that had been bargained for him by the bargaining unit.”

That was never the issue. There was (and is) a movement to ensure and keep the political arm of the union and the bargaining arm of the union separate both in perception and legally. We wanted the process of collective bargaining to be based on data, facts and in our case, safety related. The knee jerk selection of candidates just because they were Democrats was challenged with data, and prospective candidate platforms. This lead to a better selection and vetting process that in the end actually resulted in endorsing some Republican candidates. The vetting process improved… that was the point.

“Did that person show up at union meetings and discuss candidate endorsements or bring it up for a vote? I’m betting he or she was home watching “reality” television instead.“

Yep, that was how the candidate vetting process was improved… and then we went home and watched Oprah.

“Air traffic controllers earn relatively high pay and have good benefits. Median annual wages of air traffic controllers in May 2008 were $111,870. The middle 50 percent earned between $71,050 and $143,780. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $45,020, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $161,010. The average annual salary, excluding overtime earnings, for air traffic controllers in the Federal Government—which employs 90 percent of all controllers—was $109,218 in March 2009.

The Air Traffic Control pay system classifies each air traffic facility into one of eight levels with corresponding pay bands. Under this pay system, controllers’ salaries are determined by the rating of the facility. Higher ratings usually mean higher controller salaries and greater demands on the controller’s judgment, skill, and decision-making ability.”

Sure glad Ronnie broke that union. ::::::chuckle:::::::
I wonder how much the US citizens paid for training all the new help in the 1980s

“And that check from the city would have been larger if there was no bargaining unit?”

Their is not way to prove… nor disprove… what an individuals salary would be with or without a union.

I will submit that it is in city’s and employees mutual benefit to negoiate salary as a group. The city – would use salary bands to help manage the salary structure of a group of employees to effectively administer payment and benefits. I submit they would do that with or without a union.

I missed the link where your 50:1 ratio of spending by corporations on Republicans behalf.

I thought we went through this little nugget, and you claimed that stats. and graphs are unreliable. I deferred to your expertise, but I have to say that I won’t simply rely on your word the veracity of those numbers.

I did look it up if you remember, and both Dems. and Reps. spent an equal amount on their campaigns. You didn’t like my source. I’m respectfully asking for you to provide yours. Thanks.

Concerned –
You have those benefits BECAUSE of unions. If you want to see what life was like before unions watch the move “The Molly Maguires”.

Unions, public and private, have taken pay cuts and freezes, and increased withholdings for health and retirement.

It is the intransigent greed at the top of the private sector that has America in its current predicament.

Whatido: Washington already has collective bargaining. And Walker wants to gut the unions by limiting their authority bargaining for pay raises that can be no higher than the rate of inflation, while barring them from all other areas such as work conditions.

MOD, we did, and we were looking at the same site, and I pointed out that part of the problem was the site did not say how the the “indepedent” funds were spent in relation to the three polictal parties.

However, I do believe the 50:1 ratio appliies only to union funds and not to total funding, which would still be in favor of the GOP/Tea Party.

Nor did the site discuss attack ads by such organizations as Crossroads and the Chamber of Commerce.

JudasEscargot says:
MARCH 2, 2011 AT 8:04 AM
“Roll_On says:
March 1, 2011 at 6:38 pm
xring, what I say is a fact until you prove me wrong. So go ahead and prove me wrong.”

This is THE MOST INCREDIBLE INTERNET POST IN HISTORY.

Even though this comes from a troll, this is where I got my logic.

sue1234 says:
FEBRUARY 19, 2011 AT 2:19 PM
I’m an overeducated liberal progressive feminist feminazi; probably your worse nightmare. Since I am well educated I only deal in facts. If I say it, its a fact. If you dont agree, please feel free to research it yourself.

I have no problem that you are just remembering hearing the 50:1 ratio somewhere. I do that all the time, but experience has taught me to look it up before repeating what could very well be my own misunderstanding, or an inadvertent exaggeration. Not saying that’s what you’re doing, but every time you repeat that assertion, the hairs on the back of my neck tells me it probably isn’t true.

The site absolutely DID address the attack ads you’re talking about. I even linked to that page. Those organizations are called 527s and gained popularity with both parties as an end run around McCain/Feingold. The Reps. started out with more “donations” from 527s, but these “soft money” ads actually favored Dems. in ’08.

You’re talking about corporate donations though, and there is no question that Republicans enjoy more support from them. It’s not 50:1 however, and the Democrats actually received more from corporations than they have historically received. Crony capitalism isn’t just something somebody throws out as a diversion. It is the antithesis of a free market…it exists, and BOTH parties engage in it for the money it brings.

xring says:
March 2, 2011 at 1:02 pm
whatido, try scanning the tnt blogs back about a week or 10 days.

………….
Submitted by beerBoy on November 6, 2008 – 9:49am.
basic rule of internet rhetoric, you make the assertion – you provide the supporting evidence. It is taken as a sign that you don’t really have anything to back up your claims if you come back with a variation on “do your own research” or “it’s self-evident”.
.
?

98411-Forbes Magazine, hardly a left wing source did a little study. Millionaires paid on average 17.7%; those making less that 50K paid 22% on average in federal taxes. Fair?

A unionized public employee, a member of the Tea Party and a CEO are sitting at a table. In the middle of the table there is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and takes 11 cookies, looks at the tea partier and says,”look out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie.”

“r98, why should someone who makes a million on the stock market get away with 15% when somone who makes a million else where have to pay 35%.?”

Because one pot of money was made from a capital gain and the government wants to encourage those with money to invest capital into the engines of the economy.

The other comes from income earned via hard smart work and we have agreed to a progressive tax system that the more one makes the more one pays more percentage wise.

Or are you referring to short term vs long term capital gain. Sorry dn’t have a source but I think the difference is to encourage the use of capital in a long term predictable fashion as oppose to short term… think the internet bubble.

“And don’t use the excuse ‘the money used to play the stock market has already been taxed’ because we are taking about the additional million that was made.”

…but it usually has been, no excuse, sorry. If I got you right yes I made the money, it was taxed probably via federal income tax, I then invested it, did well, and in turn it will get taxed yet again on the profits.

“R98 – ‘thank god for millionaires’ – you missed the point Christy wants to balance his budget by raising taxes on public employees while cutting taxes for the rich.”

As far as I know, the public employees pay the same tax rate as their private employee peers given the same income.

If you are talking about the business tax cut. If I am paying more into the state coffers, how do I hire you or expand my business? If my business tax rate is the highest (second highest???) in the country how do I get business to come to my glorious state? How do I protect them from leaving my state to reduce their cost of doing business here? I can sell only so many widgets to break even.

Jesus is right, she did pay more into the church pot as a percentage of her income. Good for her and I am sure it felt good to be singled out by the Big Man. But if it was her last copper coin and she has no money to take care of herself then she becomes dependent on someone else for her sustanance.

“whatIdo says:
March 2, 2011 at 7:01 pm
xring says:
March 2, 2011 at 1:02 pm
whatido, try scanning the tnt blogs back about a week or 10 days.

………….
Submitted by beerBoy on November 6, 2008 – 9:49am.
basic rule of internet rhetoric, you make the assertion – you provide the supporting evidence. It is taken as a sign that you don’t really have anything to back up your claims if you come back with a variation on “do your own research” or “it’s self-evident”.

fascinating how WhatIdo can’t find something 10 days old, but can find something over 2 years old

I am right there with Andrew Carnegie, who, when the top 1% owned over 90% of the wealth of America in the 1890’s (similar to today), tried to push a graduated income tax through Congress. He stated that since the top 1% took 90% of the county’s wealth and with it control the political power it brings, the tax rate for them should be 90%. The whole idea of the graduated income tax was to help build a middle class in America so we could have a strong democracy which needs a well-educated and large middle class to flourish. When a wealthy elite dominates a country, like it did in the 1890’s and the middle class is weak and diminished, representative democracy gives way to either totalitarianism by the powerful or revolution, so says Carnegie. It took several decades, but he got people listening and the graduated income tax idea helped build a strong middle class. Several of the nation’s most responsible 1%ers, like Buffet and Bloomberg and many others say the same thing.

x-ring misapplies – “R98 – ‘thank god for millionaires’ – you missed the point Christy wants to balance his budget by raising taxes on public employees while cutting taxes for the rich.

Mark 12:41-44″
Uhhh…xring? Mark 12:41-44 has to do with offerings to the Temple…..not the Roman government. Please refrain from politically twisting scripture. You’re in way over you head.
Can you spell : “Context”?

x-ring overindulges – ” John 8:7 ”
In America, we debate. In Iran, they stone.
Where are you coming from and what translation are you utilizing?
You make no sense. Again: Context and application.
You are like a child attempting to drive, the way you erroneously apply the Word…

Lars,
Mark 14:41-44 is the Widows Offering, and I’m sorry you fail to see the connection between the passage and the Jersey millionaires.

On March 2 Roll_On was playing troll pointing out misspellings and John 8:7 says “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Perhaps you should discuss your problem with you Minister.

What: ???

*

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.